RealGM Top 100 List #31

[penbeast0]

CENTERS
Artis Gilmore or Dwight Howard are the next greatest 2 way centers but Artis seemed to lose his competitive fire when he came to the NBA and Dwight has not been the same dominant player since Orlando. Alonzo Mourning and Mel Daniels are the other 2 candidates that came to mind, very similar players in many ways; plus probably Dikembe Mutombo is a candidate as the most impactful defender left (and not a complete disaster offensively). The numbers clearly say Artis, but I'm just not as high on him as I used to be.

FORWARDS
Baylor, McHale, Rodman, and new star Kevin Durant. Interested to see who starts getting support. Baylor seemed to have efficiency issues even for his day, McHale is super efficient but worked against single teams in the post more than any great post scorer in history and was a mediocre defensive rebounder (though the presence of Larry Bird that gave him so many single teams also stole some rebounds from him). Rodman is the GOAT rebounder, but also a disruptive force and barely above the Ben Wallace level offensively. Kevin Durant may have the highest peak but is 5 years with no rings enough? What about someone like Alex English who was very good for over a decade in many different lineups and taking on many different roles?

GUARDS
I am looking hard at Clyde Drexler and Chris Paul who, like Artis, has spectacular numbers but I'm just not sure that his numbers don't overstate his impact. I am open to Payton, Kidd, or Isiah but all three have efficiency issues v. Paul and Paul is the best of the bunch as a playmaker and not a bad defender. Longevity is the biggest issue for Paul like it is for Durant. I'd love to say I'm looking at Sidney Moncrief here too but he is a bit below the Chris Paul level for either peak or longevity.

Things I need to see . . .

Some great posts on Artis have left me a bit less skeptical of his NBA years, he was far less active and played closer to the basket on both ends which accounts for (a) his lesser defensive impact, (b) the rep of not having good hands which was not a problem in the ABA, and (c) the great increase in efficiency AFTER the move to the NBA.

Haven't seen any analysis on other top centers like Zo or Deke yet. How do they compare to Artis (and Dwight)?

Dwight Howard v. Kevin Durant v. Chris Paul . . . who has the greatest CAREER value of the active guys?

For Baylor fans, I'd like to see a convincing case made for him against Kevin McHale and Alex English as well as John Havlicek (who I'm not as big a fan of as some).

Warspite, if you advocate Cousy, can you show him making his team appreciably better in any realistic way? It seems they replaced him without missing a beat and his playoff numbers are awful during the championship years; Ramsey was picking up the slack that Cousy dropped it seems. Thus the case for Cousy should probably be like the case for Nash or Kidd, based on his unique playmaking skills making his teammates better.

For now, I favor:

a. Artis Gilmore over other bigs left. Maybe McHale but I have questions about his rebounding.

b. Clyde Drexler over other wings left. Maybe Gervin but I like my stars to put in effort on defense.

c. Gary Payton over other PGs left. Better defense AND better individual offense than Kidd plus better team results (with better talent around him though). Kidd's playmaking in the half court just never seemed enough to make up this gap when he couldn't shoot; when he could shoot from 3, his defensive impact had dropped. Chris Paul is my second choice at PG over Kidd as well.

[E-Balla]

I'm voting for Kidd. His 5 year peak (99-03) is just a step below of the top guys left (Paul and Baylor) but he has way more seasons as a great player compared to both of them. Couple that with more success than Paul and Baylor (considering league differences) and his amazing ability to play basically any role and he's my pick.

[Moonbeam]

c. Gary Payton over other PGs left. Better defense AND better individual offense than Kidd plus better team results (with better talent around him though). Kidd's playmaking in the half court just never seemed enough to make up this gap when he couldn't shoot; when he could shoot from 3, his defensive impact had dropped. Chris Paul is my second choice at PG over Kidd as well.

I've also got GP over Kidd. It's interesting that he hasn't gotten much traction but there has been a lot of discussion about Kidd.

[Texas Chuck]

Leaning heavily to Kidd. Still can't buy into Paul over Kidd in terms of overall career yet, but would be interested in some Payton comparisons and I will be reviewing some Payton stuff on my own.

Also pretty high on Deke, but I really need to see how he measures up to Cowens, Howard, and maybe Zo to make sure I have him as the best center left.

[penbeast0]

I'm voting for Kidd. His 5 year peak (99-03) is just a step below of the top guys left (Paul and Baylor) but he has way more seasons as a great player compared to both of them. Couple that with more success than Paul and Baylor (considering league differences) and his amazing ability to play basically any role and he's my pick.

I don't understand this "play any role" idea for Kidd. He certainly can't be your scoring point. Even after he developed a 3 point shot it was basically only hitting open 3's. He can't shoot from anywhere else except possibly finishing on the break and he wasn't particularly good at that. What he does is create in the open court extremely well, rebound extremely well for a PG, and play good defense. What he does poorly is shoot; which limits him in terms of what he can do.

Payton could play far more versatile roles than Kidd. He could drive and shoot, drive and distribute, post up, spot up, he could be your primary scoring option if necessary (not where I'd prefer him), he could be primarily a pass first point. He wasn't a great shooter like Nash or Stockton but was as good as Isiah (though not as quick) and clearly superior to Kidd. He had a lot of team success, less than Isiah, more than Kidd. AND, he was probably the GOAT defensive PG applying pressure to opposing ballhandlers, getting steals in the passing lanes, and generally being a disruptive force on that end. Kidd and Isiah were also good defenders but not as disruptive as Payton.

Unless there is RAPM data or the equivalent showing Payton coming up short of Kidd, I don't see an argument for Kidd over Payton and most of the Isiah arguments come from the mystique of the Bad Boys. Open for persuasion on this point but don't see it as of yet.

[Moonbeam]

One thing that has bothered me about Kidd is that before heading to New Jersey, his teams never did well in the postseason if they even qualified. The one year Phoenix made the second round while he was there, he only played 1 game in that series, then the Suns were curb-stomped by the Lakers. That isn't to say that they performed much worse than expectations, but for a player in this vicinity in the list, I'd like to see more playoff punch than that. Even his first Finals run in New Jersey wasn't that impressive considering how pitiful the East was:

-0.2 scoring margin in Round 1 against Indiana (-0.07 SRS)
+4.0 margin in Round 2 against Charlotte (0.57 SRS)
+2.8 margin in ECF against Boston (1.75 SRS)
-9.2 margin in Finals against L.A. Lakers (7.15 SRS)

Their run in 2003 was much better, and they put a scare into the 2004 Pistons, but aside from that, nothing stands out until he went to Dallas and no longer was doing the heavy lifting.

[tsherkin]

Hmmmm. Definitely not ready for Baylor. Thinking about Kidd, but I like what penbeast was saying above about Payton. Paul is obviously on my mind, I think he's still my guy, and I don't generally care about roleplayer seasons as a meaningful factor in star player careers. It's nice, but not super relevant. Otherwise, I'd be talking more about McAdoo.

[Texas Chuck]

Not sure why Kidd's lack of team success would bother you more than Paul's considering Kidd had 3 runs to the Finals and Paul hasn't even made a conference finals. Sure the West has been tough, but Kidd spent a lot of time there too. And say what you want about SRS and what not, winning 3 playoff series is never easy.


But leaving that for a second, despite not being a scorer, Kidd put up 20/8/9 for the entire 02 run. No his efficiency isn't great, but we know that going in. That's not his game and we seem to be seeing through a lot of the new data coming out that we probably put too much stock into efficiency. Hard to knock Kidd here really. Especially when he was a 15 ppg guy in the RS who raised his scoring 33%. Sacrificing his personal efficiency stats to do what made his team the most successful by taking more shots since there weren't really any better options.

I really don't see your argument here at all.

[ElGee]

To weigh in on so-called longevity vs. peak -- it's the total value of the years that matter (as others have said). 20 years of being role player doesn't do much compared to Grant Hill's short career. Then again, 15 years of Karl Malone is better than almost everyone, including many players with better peaks (and with good so-called "longevity").

A good role player is 2-3% more likely to win a championship than a replacement player. It's not that they are "hard" to come by, it's just that they aren't easy to come by. That's why we typically marvel at teams with depth out to the 9th or 10th man. That's why key offseason signings like James Posey or guys like Trevor Ariza matter, even if it's a small amount.

So for instance, if a guy tags on 5 good seasons as a "quality role player" that can add up to an all-nba season. If a guy has 3 all-nba seasons, that can add up to a GOAT-level season. It depends on the circumstances, but if you're interested in career value, it all matters. Here's a guide if you don't want to get into the numerical nitty-gritty (for odds of winning a title):

good role player: 4-5%
sub all-star: 6-8%
all-star: 8-11%
all-nba: 11-15%
situational MVP candidate: 15-20%
strong MVP candidate:20-27%
all-Time Season: 28-45%

You can see that if you really liked a player's peak, like CP3, it wouldn't take much to roughly equal a long career of all-star or all-nba seasons. (I have CP3 with 6 seasons between situation and strong MVP-level.) Just an FYI, for those who aren't aware, Paul is 26h all-time in MVP Shares.

[Clyde Frazier]

Even if you have kidd > payton, I think payton has a case for being right there with him. Kidd was the better playmaker, but payton gave you 20+ PPG in his prime, and ran the offense well along with elite defense. Kidd was arguably the better playoff performer. It's definitely fitting considering they're both big PGs whose games originated from the same courts in oakland.

CENTERS
Artis Gilmore or Dwight Howard are the next greatest 2 way centers but Artis seemed to lose his competitive fire when he came to the NBA and Dwight has not been the same dominant player since Orlando. Alonzo Mourning and Mel Daniels are the other 2 candidates that came to mind, very similar players in many ways; plus probably Dikembe Mutombo is a candidate as the most impactful defender left (and not a complete disaster offensively). The numbers clearly say Artis, but I'm just not as high on him as I used to be.

If you're mentioning mel daniels, shouldn't reed get mention as well?

[tsherkin]

But leaving that for a second, despite not being a scorer, Kidd put up 20/8/9 for the entire 02 run.

It isn't that he isn't a scorer, it's that he isn't good when he does score. Kidd has not been bashful about shooting in his career, though he was never one to shoot TOO much. The problem was always that he didn't draw tons of fouls, blew in the key and took a long time to develop his J... and then really didn't develop the 3 into a significant weapon until he was no longer a primary player. In 02, he was a 48.4% TS and 103 ORTG player in the regular season. RAPM rates his offensive impact as greater than that, but his performance wasn't surprising because he was a mediocre 3pt shooter who was below average at the rim and blew from 3-10. His distance 2pt shot was actually just fine, merely non-elite. Come the playoffs, he was playing over 40 mpg and averaging 17.7 FGA/g to score 19.6 ppg on 49.2% TS and posting a 104 ORTG with a reduced TOV% and AST% compared to the regular season.

The Nets were a 104.0 ORTG team in the RS, ranked 17th of 29. In the playoffs, they posted 97.7 versus Indiana (who posted 97.9), 106.6 versus the Hornets (102.2), 101.5 versus Boston (98.5) and 106.5 versus the Lakers (116.6). So basically, they were largely poop on offense the entire time, save for the Hornets series, and won with defense... and by facing crap teams.

The Nets were a +3.67 SRS team that year. IND was -0.07, CHH +0.56, BOS +1.75 and the Lakers +7.14.

No his efficiency isn't great, but we know that going in. That's not his game and we seem to be seeing through a lot of the new data coming out that we probably put too much stock into efficiency. Hard to knock Kidd here really. Especially when he was a 15 ppg guy in the RS who raised his scoring 33%. Sacrificing his personal efficiency stats to do what made his team the most successful by taking more shots since there weren't really any better options.

I really don't see your argument here at all.

Basically what we saw was an inefficient scorer shoot more, remain inefficient, and play on a team that really didn't play particularly remarkable offense. That doesn't support the notion that him scoring more was very much a good thing. It does reinforce that the Nets were a strong defensive team, and that Kidd's presence on that team was a major factor in that truth, of course, but you really don't want to be arguing that the 02 Nets benefited a lot from Kidd scoring an inefficient near-20 ppg in the playoffs, because their team performance doesn't really speak to that being the case from what I see.

[E-Balla]

I'm voting for Kidd. His 5 year peak (99-03) is just a step below of the top guys left (Paul and Baylor) but he has way more seasons as a great player compared to both of them. Couple that with more success than Paul and Baylor (considering league differences) and his amazing ability to play basically any role and he's my pick.

I don't understand this "play any role" idea for Kidd. He certainly can't be your scoring point. Even after he developed a 3 point shot it was basically only hitting open 3's. He can't shoot from anywhere else except possibly finishing on the break and he wasn't particularly good at that. What he does is create in the open court extremely well, rebound extremely well for a PG, and play good defense. What he does poorly is shoot; which limits him in terms of what he can do.

OK so Kidd can't be a closer or off ball scorer. And if you meant on ball scorer this is still a guy that averaged nearly 19 ppg on +1TS in 03 and averaged 20 ppg on about average TS in the playoffs. He's not going to put up 30 consistently but Kidd could become at least a decent scorer when he needed to (and when he attacked the basket).

Payton could play far more versatile roles than Kidd. He could drive and shoot, drive and distribute, post up, spot up, he could be your primary scoring option if necessary (not where I'd prefer him), he could be primarily a pass first point. He wasn't a great shooter like Nash or Stockton but was as good as Isiah (though not as quick) and clearly superior to Kidd. He had a lot of team success, less than Isiah, more than Kidd. AND, he was probably the GOAT defensive PG applying pressure to opposing ballhandlers, getting steals in the passing lanes, and generally being a disruptive force on that end. Kidd and Isiah were also good defenders but not as disruptive as Payton.

Unless there is RAPM data or the equivalent showing Payton coming up short of Kidd, I don't see an argument for Kidd over Payton and most of the Isiah arguments come from the mystique of the Bad Boys. Open for persuasion on this point but don't see it as of yet.

I love Payton's ability to dominate the paint and play great defense a lot but I don't feel like he could play as many roles as Kidd. I mean look at what happened when he went to LA. He played mediocre (compared to expectations) in the regular season and in the postseason he was horrific. I just think they're very similar but Kidd has a lower floor and equal ceiling compared to Payton.

[Quotatious]

I love Payton's ability to dominate the paint and play great defense a lot but I don't feel like he could play as many roles as Kidd. I mean look at what happened when he went to LA. He played mediocre (compared to expectations) in the regular season and in the postseason he was horrific. I just think they're very similar but Kidd has a lower floor and equal ceiling compared to Payton.

Well, to be fair, Payton simply declined (heavily) as a player, particularly athletically, during that 2003-04 season. He wasn't a good fit for the triangle offense, but I wouldn't really draw conclusions from that season, trying to prove that he wasn't a portable player, or couldn't be, in his prime. He was already 35 years old when at the start of that season, with over 40000 minutes played. It wasn't exactly surprising that a guard with his mileage would decline. He never bounced back from that, no matter if he played for LA, Boston or Miami.

[lukekarts]

I love Payton's ability to dominate the paint and play great defense a lot but I don't feel like he could play as many roles as Kidd. I mean look at what happened when he went to LA. He played mediocre (compared to expectations) in the regular season and in the postseason he was horrific. I just think they're very similar but Kidd has a lower floor and equal ceiling compared to Payton.

It's a little harsh to judge Payton's versatility based a season he played at 35; though I'd say that his game wasn't one that could age as well as Kidd's given he couldn't shoot, so once his athleticism faded he was only really left with a semi-reliable offensive game in the post.

Still, I give Payton the career edge over Kidd and Paul and frankly I don't rate Paul's peak as highly as most here. Sure he has fantastic RS stats and RAPM but come the playoffs he declines. Whether that's due to his inability as a player, or perhaps more so the trait of being a pass-first player being less valuable in the playoffs, or both, I'm not sure. But there's no real excuse for Paul to be less successful than Payton given his Clippers extremely comparable to those Seattle teams.

[Quotatious]

I really don't know who I'll vote for here. Gilmore would be the guy who I'd vote for in a heartbeat, if he was getting more traction, but if no one else votes for him yet, it doesn't really make sense.
Drexler and Baylor would probably be my next picks, then Kidd or Elvin Hayes. Honestly, I'd lean towards Hayes over Kidd (neither was an efficient scorer, but Hayes was more efficient compared to league average, good rebounder, excellent defender (haven't really compared Hayes and Kidd defensively, yet, but my impression is that Elvin was more impactful because of the bigman/guard thing). And, Hayes' longevity (over 54000 career minutes) and durability (missed only 9 games in 16 seasons) is every bit as good as Kidd's. I look at Hayes as a poor man's version of Karl Malone. Certainly not really close to the Mailman, but similar in terms of what he brought to the table (even their offensive game was similar, both loved to shoot that turnaround jumper...) I don't think I can vote for Hayes over Gilmore though, so I guess his chances to even make the top 40 are rather low...I was pretty low on Hayes in the past, but I've gained some respect for him over the last few months (even ranked him 31st on my pre-list, ahead of Hondo, Kidd, Baylor, Barry etc.). The gap between Malone and Hayes is IMO similar as between Bird and Barry.

I'd love to see a good comparison of Kidd, Isiah and Payton (you can throw in CP3, too, but I'm much less comfortable comparing him to the other three PGs, because he's still in the prime of his career, hard to say how to evaluate his peak/prime, which is admittedly the best of the four, but his longevity is by far the worst). I have some ideas how they should be ranked, but I'd love to see someone with a different perspective. IMO Payton may get a little underrated, considering that Isiah and Kidd have been getting some serious consideration since around #26 or 27, or so, and he doesn't seem to be that much worse than them.

I guess I may wait and see who gets in a run-off, and then decide, like I did in the previous thread.

[G35]

One thing that has bothered me about Kidd is that before heading to New Jersey, his teams never did well in the postseason if they even qualified. The one year Phoenix made the second round while he was there, he only played 1 game in that series, then the Suns were curb-stomped by the Lakers. That isn't to say that they performed much worse than expectations, but for a player in this vicinity in the list, I'd like to see more playoff punch than that. Even his first Finals run in New Jersey wasn't that impressive considering how pitiful the East was:

-0.2 scoring margin in Round 1 against Indiana (-0.07 SRS)
+4.0 margin in Round 2 against Charlotte (0.57 SRS)
+2.8 margin in ECF against Boston (1.75 SRS)
-9.2 margin in Finals against L.A. Lakers (7.15 SRS)

Their run in 2003 was much better, and they put a scare into the 2004 Pistons, but aside from that, nothing stands out until he went to Dallas and no longer was doing the heavy lifting.

Payton had Shawn Kemp
Nash had Dirk/Amare
Stockton had Malone

Kidd had Gugliotta, Rodney Rogers, Cliff Robinson, Kenyon Martin

Which one of those PG's could have done better with the talent Kidd had to work with.....

[Texas Chuck]

re: tsherkin and his usual colorful description of Kidd's offensive ineptitude

First I won't try and change tsherkin's mind as I know exactly where he stands on Kidd, and frankly a lot of what he says about Kidd from an ability standpoint I don't disagree with.

Where I take some issue is the conclusions being reached. I had a problem with punishing Stockton because people felt like he should have shot more at times. And I have a problem with criticizing Kidd in Jersey for shooting "too much". Because to do so implies that either you know more than Kidd about he should play(maybe, but I think I'd lean towards him), or that Kidd was a stupid or selfish player---which goes against the reality of what we know about him. He was the exact opposite.

To help understand what I was saying earlier about him helping his team in the 02 PS by increasing his scoring I'd like everyone to picture 2 situations we should all be familiar with:

1. Think about the team you follow most closely. Now picture how many times your best player or best shot-creator ends up having to take shots that aren't ideally efficient but they do so because on that possession its the best chance for the team to come away with points. I know Dirk does this several times a game. His overall efficiency suffers for it of course, but the team benefits. No one really notices it because Dirk scores very well in overall efficiency.

2. Think about when you play in pickup games. In one of my regular games we always chose teams by the first 5 guys to hit a 3 are on one team, and the next 5 are on teh other and everyone else waits to take on the winner. And if you remember when we did PC board scouting reports I am not a scorer. But a lot of the time I end up on that 2nd 5 which is typically made up of less scorers than the first 5. And thus I take a more aggressive offensive role than suits my game because it helps the team have a better chance of winning. I'm not as efficient a scoring option of course and so I have to continue to provide the defense, passing and rebounding I typically focus on.

Well this is Kidd in Jersey. He wasn't worried about what his box scores would look like in 10-15 years. He was doing what he had to do to try and win games, And as drza has pointed out--his RAPM stuff shows that he is having signficant positive impact despite the ugliness of his percentages. I agree that in an ideal world he plays like he got to in Dallas the 2nd time around. He facilitates, he knocks down wide open shots, and leaves the scoring to guys like Dirk and JET.

But to punish him for not having great team offenses when he doesnt have a great offensive team seems wrong, no? Could Paul make those Nets offenses better? Yeah I think he could. He's a better offensive player--no doubt about it. But I think we should give Kidd more credit for playing in a way that was best for the team. Just like KG didnt have great team D's in Minny because of his team and because he was having to play in a way that wasnt ideally suited for him, but he gladly did so to benefit his team.

[JordansBulls]

Vote: Isiah Thomas

Led the Pistons to back to back titles in an era that was tough as nails. Had to deal with peak Bird and Magic in the process. Also won finals mvp, lost only 1 series in his career with HCA. Took a franchise from the bottom to the top as well in the process.

[trex_8063]

My vote: Elgin Baylor.

In ‘59 and rookie Elgin Baylor had the 2nd-highest PER in the league, behind only a peak Bob Pettit.
In ‘60 he had the 2nd-highest PER in the league behind only Wilt Chamberlain.
In ‘61: he had the highest PER (even ahead of Wilt, not to mention Pettit and rookie Oscar Robertson).
‘62 and ‘63: 2nd-best PER in the league both years, behind only Wilt Chamberlain (even ahead of triple-double season Robertson, as well as Pettit and Walt Bellamy’s insane rookie season).

That’s a super-impressive 5-year span, imo. Yes, he drops off quite a bit after, but it’s not as though he faded into obscurity or ineffectiveness in subsequent years. He was a relevant player until ‘70.

Despite his career "lingering" until the early 70's, he's still 24th all-time in career rs PER (while averaging a whopping 40.0 mpg for his career).
24th all-time in career playoff PER.
Was FOUR times in the top 3 in MVP voting, SEVEN times in the top 5 (one other time in 6th place). Is 23rd all-time in MVP award shares.
Is 23rd all-time RealGM RPoY shares.

Efficiency
By year TS%: Baylor vs League Avg (diff)
'59: 48.8/45.8 (+3.0)
'60: 48.9/46.3 (+2.6)
'61: 49.8/46.9 (+2.9)
'62: 49.2/47.9 (+1.3)
'63: 51.9/49.3 (+2.6)
'64: 48.7/48.5 (+0.2)
'65: 46.3/47.9 (-1.6)
'66: 45.6/48.7 (-2.0)
'67: 49.1/49.3 (-0.2)
'68: 50.5/49.8 (+0.7)
'69: 50.0/49.1 (+0.9)
'70: 53.7/51.1 (+2.6)
'71: 46.2/50.0 (-3.8) *2 game sample
'72: 48.7/50.4 (-1.7) *9 game sample

5-Year Prime avg ('59-'63) vs league avg: 49.9/47.2 (+2.7)--->above league avg in all five of those years, by more than 2.5% over in 4 of the 5.
Career vs league over same years (not accounting for games played): 49.4/48.6 (+0.8)

Offensive Impact
The Laker team offensive rating improved with rookie Baylor by 2.8 (by 1.4 even if measuring relative to league average) in ‘59. I won’t claim that Baylor always “helped the offense optimally” to the best of his abilities; but I do think he helped it. Obviously other metrics of offensive production/efficiency suggest Baylor was a “big deal”.

But what I’m beginning to wonder about is whether or not Baylor had a defensive impact that hasn't been properly appreciated.

Maybe his capability as a rebounder eliminated a lot of second-chance points for opponents????

idk, but something I noted is that the Laker team DRtg changed -1.4 (minus is a good thing for DRtg) in ‘59 with rookie Baylor. Relative to league average, DRtg improved by -2.8 (that’s a pretty big jump):
In ‘58, they were 8th of 8 defensively, DRtg +4.5 over league avg and +2.5 over the next worse team.
In ‘59, improved to only +1.7 over league avg (6th of 8).
They would continue to improve defensively over the next couple of seasons with acquisitions of Jerry West and aging Ray Felix. And then interestingly their defense appears to suffer slightly in ‘62 when Baylor misses significant games:
In ‘61, the Laker DRtg is -1.3 to league average (again: minus is good), 4th of 8.
In ‘62 Baylor misses 32 games and the Laker DRtg falls a little: just -0.3 vs league average (though still 4th of 9).
In ‘63: no more big Ray Felix playing significant minutes in the middle and Jerry West misses 25 games (things you’d expect to hurt the team defense); they otherwise obtain guard Dick Barnett (not sure that really helps the D significantly), and the only other change from the previous year is that Baylor is healthy (doesn’t miss a game)…….and the team DRtg improves to -1.2 vs league average (3rd of 9).
And then beginning in ‘64 (perhaps non-coincidentally just as Baylor begins to be significantly hampered by knee injuries, which causes his overall effectiveness to suffer, as seen by sudden drop in PER and other metrics), the Laker team DRtg takes a sudden dip (drops to significantly below average)……...And it would never recovery to a better than average team defense (even with big bodies like Darrall Imhoff and Mel Counts) until ‘69 when they obtained Wilt Chamberlain.

So I’m starting to wonder if Baylor had a bigger impact defensively than he’s previously been given credit for.

Overall impact......
The Lakers in ‘58 were 19-53 with an SRS of -5.78. And then they obtained rookie Elgin Baylor.
In ‘59--with Baylor being the only relevant player acquisition--they improved by 14 games to 33-39, SRS of -1.42 (+4.36 improvement); also made it to the finals (defeating the 2.89 SRS defending champion Hawks 4-2 along the way). That strikes me as indication of fairly significant impact.

[batmana]

I am going to vote for Kevin Durant here.

Durant has already posted one historic season and several superstar seasons. He is still very young, with the promise to add more accolades and eventually a ring or two to his resume. He is a fantastic scorer, already in the conversation among the best scorers ever; he is also working on all aspects of the game and I can safely call him an all-around player. Durant is a franchise player who could be a first tier player when it's all said and done. I don't think any of the remaining players can be put in the same tier. Actually, I think Bill Walton can but he only had like 2 seasons at that level due to injuries.